On 7/10/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erik Sandberg schreef:
> First, I would prefer to make the second parameter of
> IMPLEMENT_TRANSLATOR the exact method identifier; i.e., somethign
> like
> IMPLEMENT_TRANSLATOR_LISTENER (Arpeggio_engraver, arpeggio_event);
> void Arpeggio_engraver::arpeggio_event (..)
>
> Second: Would it make sense to deviate from naming conventions, and
> name the listen method ArpeggioEvent, or should I rather perform some
> dirty trickery to generate the class name from a GNU-style string?
>
> I.e., should the listen method's name be
> Arpeggio_engraver::ArpeggioEvent
> or
> Arpeggio_engraver::arpeggio_event
> ?
>
> I imagine that the former could be easier to understand for a
> beginner; after all, the keyword arpeggio_event in C++ usually
> corresponds to symbol arpeggio-event
> in scheme, so with it may be difficult for a poor grepper to find out
> what's going on if strings are manipulated heavily under the hood.
Use C++ names in C++, and scheme names in scheme, i.e.
Foo_bar::bla_bla
for handling a bla-bla-event.
so do you also think that all stream-event classes should be named
like 'arpeggio-event' rather than 'ArpeggioEvent'?
Regarding bla_bla for classes, it makes me nervous about namespace
clashes. Why not use Foo_bar::bla_bla_event?
Erik
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
